This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Hats off to Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines for her Senate May 10 testimony on the likelihood of nuclear war with Russia, even though parts of it were surreal, as we discuss below.
From an intelligence perspective, she told it like it is. Not only that; she took the quintessential nuclear-use question a step beyond what CIA Director William Burns had told the Financial Times on May 7. Burns pointed out that Russian President Vladimir Putin "doesn't believe he can afford to lose" in Ukraine. Burns added:
"I don't think this means Putin is deterred at this point because he staked so much on the choice that he made to launch this invasion that I think he's convinced right now that doubling down still will enable him to make progress."
Whether or not Burns read our brief VIPS Memo of May 1, it was, frankly, good to see that he and we were on the same page regarding the key judgment that the Ukraine conflict is a must-win for Putin.
Ms. Haines took VIPs' warning (about an "existential threat" to Russia) a step further. Swallowing hard and, uncharacteristically, stammering a little, she answered THE big question when asked by Sen. Mark Warner (D, VA):
"We're supporting Ukraine but also we don't want to ultimately end up in World War III and we don't want to end up in a situation where actors are using nuclear weapons. Our view is, as General Berrier indicated, there's not a sort of an imminent potential for Putin to use nuclear weapons. We perceive that " as something that he is unlikely to do unless there is effectively an existential threat to his regime and to Russia from his perspective.
"We do think that that could be the case in the event he perceives that he is losing the war in Ukraine, and that NATO is sort of, in effect, either intervening or about to intervene in that context, which would obviously contribute to a perception that he is about to lose the war in Ukraine.
"But that there are a lot of things that he would do in the context of escalation before he would get to a nuclear weapon, and also that he would be likely to engage in some signaling beyond what he has done thus far before doing so."
Do You Dare Follow the Logic in this Syllogism?
Major Premise: We don't want to end up in WWIII, using nuclear weapons.
Minor Pemise: Putin may use them if he perceives that he is losing the war in Ukraine.
Conclusion: Thus the U.S. will do what it takes to make Putin "perceive" he is losing in Ukraine.
See what I mean about surreal? Oh, but not to worry; Putin will probably first signal "beyond what he has done thus far" before using nukes. Right!
Putin Need Not Be Paranoid
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
